Order Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 30.5.2011, 26.6.2011 and 22.11.2012 by which they had been terminated from services, have preferred the instant writ petition. 2. The facts which has been argued on behalf of petitioners is that they had been appointed in terms of an advertisement published on 11.5.2010 for appointment of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer for performing the work related to MGNREGA Scheme on contract basis. It has further been stated that the petitioners had been selected and appointed to perform their duties in the capacity of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, an order dated 30th May 2011 had been passed under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no.4) stating therein that since the appointment of the petitioners had been made on contract basis in different blocks and, as such, the contract is ended with effect from 30.5.2011. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners assailing the orders contained in Annexure 4 Series has submitted that the respondents authorities had issued a fresh advertisement for appointment under MGNERGA Scheme and, as such, it has been submitted that since there is no allegation against the petitioners and, as such, they ought to have been continued in service instead of appointment of other persons in terms of an advertisement contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that an advertisement had been published by the Deputy Commissioner Cum District Programme Coordinator for MNREGA Scheme, Ranchi for appointment of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, on contract basis, on payment of consolidated amount in terms thereof petitioners had been appointed with condition that they can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. It has been further submitted that since there is no requirement of the work of the petitioners and, as such, impugned orders had been passed as Annexure-4 Series. So far as, the contention of the petitioners that the fresh advertisement had been issued (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that said advertisement has been issued by the District Rural Development Authority, Ranchi under MNREGA Scheme and as such, the advertisement as contained in Annexure 7 has got no bearing with advertisement annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition by virtue of which petitioners had been appointed. Hence, the order impugned needs no interference. 5. Hence, the order impugned needs no interference. 5. Heard the parties. 6. It appears that the petitioners had been appointed on the basis of advertisement dated 11.5.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Programme Coordinator, Ranchi only on contract basis, with specific condition that their services can be removed by any time without assigning any reason. Since the appointment of the petitioners had been made only on contract basis as such, I am of the view that it is upon appointing authority to engage employee, on contract basis, according to their need and it is their prerogative to remove them from service by not extending the period of contract. Hence, order impugned had rightly been passed. 7. On perusal of advertisement dated 26.6.2011 for fresh appointment I find that the same had been issued by the District Rural Development Authority, Ranchi under MNREGA Scheme while the petitioners were appointed in terms of Annexure 1 issued under the signature of District Programme Officer hence, both the advertisements have got no bearing to each other. 8. Moreover, advertisement annexed as Annexure 7 is for the post of Technical Assistant, Accounts Assistant and Computer Assistant but the petitioners had been appointed on contract basis to the post of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer. On this score also the petitioners can not take advantage of Annexure 7. 9. In view of the facts stated above I find no merit in the instant writ petition hence, it is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.